[Peter Wieck]

On Friday, October 3, 2014 6:53:20 AM UTC-4, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Interesting post Peter. On the AR speaker positioning recommendations, as=
=20
=20
usual they were doing it for frequency response reasons, and not imaging.=
No=20
=20
authority today would recommend an asymmetrical positioning scheme.
=20
Snipped=20

Gary Eickmeier

I think you missed the part that stated the speakers were to be moved relat=
ive to each other (mostly closer together) until the best sound-stage was r=
ealized - and only then moved as a fixed pair until the best bass was achie=
ved. I also think that AR was the Vilchur and Allison were the first engin=
eers to address bass head-on. Then, as now, bass was expensive, and their d=
esigns were quite expensive relative to many of their competitors. Large ma=
gnets, long-throw voice-coils, specific cabinet design requiring careful as=
sembly and more. And, as an unhappy offshoot, heavy power requirements.=20

And, for the first time, a legitimate 25-30Hz speaker was on the market wit=
hin the reach of a moderately heeled consumer.=20

Venturing into opinion he I am not much enamored with Authorities -=20
especially as it applies to speakers. Most have drunk the cool-aid of small=
=20
drivers (which, bluntly, don't move much air), sweet-spots and other popula=
r=20
persuasions that have some systems set up in such a way as there *can* be o=
nly one listener whose ears must be within a few cm/inches of a specific lo=
cation in all three axes. I have no argument with the fact that some such s=
ystems can sound ethereally beautiful, if a little thin. But they are quite=
selfish.=20

To me, a system should be able to function at several levels, the first bei=
ng able to produce excellent sound at live or near-live volumes. As in not =
necessarily Rock Concert ear-bleed levels (although that is surprisingly ea=
sy to produce), but at mid-row seating full orchestra levels (which is=20
surprisingly hard to produce).=20

The second being able to produce pleasant background noise that will permit=
a friendly conversation without shouting, yet still be specifically pleasi=
ng to the ear. Many speakers are incapable of producing clear noise at low =
volume.=20
=20
The last, being able to do this with some pretty articulate music - and my=
=20
test pieces to this are the Saint-Saens Organ Symphony (Phila. Orchestra=20
recorded DD at St. Francis DeSales church in West Philadelphia), Kiri Te Ka=
nawa doing Exultate Jubilate (Mozart), and any of several Purcell trumpet p=
ieces. For the 'other' music, I use a few recent recordings of Emmylou Harr=
is - somehow the female voice tests speakers like nothing else.=20

The maggies are the closest thing I have to an ideal speaker. Not quite an =
AR9 at the low end, but extremely clean and precise at the high end. I do n=
ot feel the need for a sub-woofer, they do the Bombard Pipes quite well. Th=
e 3as are very nearly as good but in a much smaller room. They would be los=
t in the place of the maggies. Filling ~4,600 cubic feet is not an easy tas=
k. Doing it without slinging a lot of mud is much harder.=20

So, I remain fascinated by the potential in _any_ new speaker design. You m=
ay be selling your design short by dismissing 'less than ideal' conditions=
=20
out-of-hand, and I think you should also question authority and do some gen=
uine experimentation under those less than ideal situations. I have found i=
n over 40 years around this hobby that well-designed speakers are remarkabl=
y forgiving of bad situations, whereas marginal designs fall flat if outsid=
e their comfort zone. This remains a hobby of discovery for me - I switch s=
tuff around and ring the changes on a more-or-less weekly basis - there are=
five (5) active systems shared between this house and the summer house wit=
h the makings of several others going in and out on a regular basis.=20

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA